Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

LEX RUSSICA (Russian Law)
Reference:

Polyanskiy, E.Y. Theory of component elements of a crime in the criminal law of the USA: the key positions and negative features

Abstract: The author considers that the theory of component elements of crime in the criminal law of the USA is going through a hard time. Throughout the period of its historical development, this theory did not manage to achieve the level allowing to establish due application of criminal law in classification of crimes. Therefore, there are no common standards in legal practice, leading to rather loose interpretation of legislation by the courts. American legal scholars spend too much time and effort on meaningless discussion on the contents of criminal act, immoral nature of psychological attitude to the acts, freedom of will in the issues of responsibility for the failure to act, etc. At the same time, they fail to pay attention to a number of practical problems. As a result, the significant shortcomings of the American theory of component elements of crime do not facilitate achievement of objective truth in criminal cases and application of just punishment to guilty persons. Such a situation calls for the active study of the theory of component elements of crime in the US law, and such as study should be held in order to avoid the further mistakes in the development of national law. Moreover, the «outsider» view on the said problems may prove valuable for the American legal science, since it presupposes an altogether different view on the possible improvements in the concept of component elements of crime.

Keywords:

jurisprudence, component elements of crime, actus reus, mens rea, failure to act, qualification, common law, forms of guilt, convergence of law, the Model Criminal Code.

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article


References
1. Esakov G.A. Anglo-amerikanskoe ugolovnoe pravo: evolyutsiya i sovremennoe sostoyanie ob-shchey chasti. — M., 2007.
2. Nikiforov B.S., Reshetnikov F.M. Sovremennoe amerikanskoe ugolovnoe pravo. — M., 1990.
3. A. Lynch, The Mental element in The Actus Reus, 98 L. Q. Rev. (1982).
4. American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Official Commentaries. Philadelphia, 1985.
5. Arnold N. Enker, Impossibility in criminal attempts-legality and the legal process, 53 Minn. L. Rev. (1969).
6. Douglas N. Husak, The Orthodox model of the criminal offense, 10 Crim. Just. Ethics (1991).
7. George Fletcher, On the moral irrelevance of bodily movements, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1994).
8. George P. Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (1978).
9. Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part (2d. Ed. 1961).
10. H.L.A. Hart, Acts of will and responsibility in punishment and responsibility (1968).
11. H. Wechsler, The challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv. L. Rev.(1952).
12. Herbert Morris, Punishment for thoughts, guilt and innocence: Essays in legal philosophy and moral psychology (1989).
13. J.W. Cicil Turner, Kenny’s outlines of Criminal Law. 18, (19th Ed. 1966).
14. James Mangiafico, The Independence Of Actus reus (2011).
15. Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea quagmire: The conscience or consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 Western State University Law Review (2001).
16. Jim Dwyer, After a death seen on tape change is promised. N.Y. Times, July 12, 2008, At B1;
17. John Austin, Lectures On Jurisprudence (4th Ed. 1873).
18. Ken Levy, Killing, letting die and the case for mildly punishing bad Samaritanism. 44 Ga L. Rev. 605.
19. Michael Corrado, Is there an act requirement in the Criminal Law?, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1994).
20. Michael Gorr, The Actus Reus requirement: A qualified defense, 10 Crim. Just. Ethics (1991).
21. Michael S. Moore, Act And Crime: The philosophy of action and its implications for criminal Law (1993).
22. Nora Zamichow, The fractured life of Jeremy Strohmeyer, L.A. Times, July 19, 1998, At A1.
23. Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881).
24. P. Robinson, M. Cahill, Can a Model Penal Code Second save the States from themselves? // 25 Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Papers Series P. Robinson. In a defense of Model Penal Code: A reply to Professor Fletcher // Bufalo Criminal Law Review. — Vol. 2. — 1998.
25. P. Robinson. M. Dubber, An Introduction to the Model Penal Code.
26. P. Robinson, Mens Rea.
27. P. Robinson, Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction? An offprint from Criminal Law: Action, Value and Structure, S. Shute, J. Gardner, J. Horder, eds., Oxford University Press, 1993.
28. P.W. Low & J.L. Hoffmann, Federal Criminal Law (1997).
29. R.M. Perkins & R.N. Boyce, Criminal Law (3d. Ed.1982).
30. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, (10th Ed. 1787).
31. W.R. La Fave, Criminal Law (3d Ed. 2000)
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.